Schwartz v. Texas/Dissent Douglas

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
907990Schwartz v. Texas — DissentWilliam O. Douglas
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinions
Black
Frankfurter
Dissenting Opinion
Douglas

United States Supreme Court

344 U.S. 199

Schwartz  v.  Texas

 Argued: Nov. 12, 1952. --- Decided: Dec 15, 1952


Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

Since, in my view (as indicated in my dissent in On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 762, 72 S.Ct. 967, 976), this wiretapping was a search that violated the Fourth Amendment, the evidence obtained by it should have been excluded. The question whether the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the states, see Wolf v. State of Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, probably need not be reached, because a Texas statute has excluded evidence obtained in violation of the Federal Constitution. Therefore I would reverse the judgment. It is true that the prior decisions of the Court point to affirmance. But those decisions reflect constructions of the Constitution which I think are erroneous. They impinge severely on the liberty of the individual and give the police the right to intrude into the privacy of any life. The practices they sanction have today acquired a momentum that is so ominous I cannot remain silent and bow to the precedents that sanction them.

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse